I previously have shown that increased Federal spending is driven not by the war on terror but by ever-increasing entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Is there any hope President Obama's recently proposed 2010 budget would bring change?
Simply put, no. A quick examination reveals that Obama wants to reduce defense spending, but would expand spending on the "big-3" entitlements mentioned above (which doesn't include other entitlement programs such as housing assistance, food stamps, welfare grants, etc., nor domestic spending on, say, education or the environment). Moreover, the President would significantly add to the budget deficit which--as MaxedOutMama has detailed--results in hugely increased costs of interest on the national debt for years to come. Here's a chart based on Table S-3 of Obama's budget submission:
source: NOfP chart from OMB data
The House of Eratosthenes posted a useful Venn diagram.
Power Line remembers when the liberal media opposed deficit spending--it's more acceptable now that they call it "unpaid-for government." But at least the New York Times now admits that "[e]ven if many of the Iraq war’s costs simply vanished, analysts say those savings would be too small." But, as the Wall Street Journal reminds:
The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.MORE:
See the comparison Will Franklin posted April 2nd: